specification icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
specification copied to clipboard

Add requirement for Solid Notification Protocol

Open acoburn opened this issue 3 years ago • 4 comments

This adjusts the Solid Protocol ED to require the new Solid Notification Protocol.

As part of this change, all references to the old WebSocket mechanism move to non-normative statements, encouraging existing implementations to continue to support backwards compatibility, as appropriate.

This change also modifies the existing "Notifications" section title to "Linked Data Notifications" in order to avoid confusion between sections 6 and 7.

acoburn avatar May 23 '22 13:05 acoburn

Closing as requested in https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/409#pullrequestreview-981830187

acoburn avatar May 23 '22 14:05 acoburn

Re-opened in consultation with the editor team

acoburn avatar May 26 '22 17:05 acoburn

This is actively being discussed by the Editors, and there is not consensus within the group, but the discussion with @timbl present is in the minutes posted by @csarven , and as that discussion shows, the gist of that debate is quite far from the change proposed in this PR. I was certainly not consulted about re-opening this, and so I'll close it.

kjetilk avatar May 26 '22 21:05 kjetilk

Given that Sarven is on holiday for the next two weeks, and any changes that may still be required are minor, perhaps we merge this very soon?

kjetilk avatar Aug 03 '22 17:08 kjetilk

Merged with the understanding that the requested change:

Update the PR to reflect the consensus as mentioned above in particular to the requirements levels."

is not completed and that the requirement levels either needs to be revisited in the ED, i.e., possibly superseding previous consensus (and action) and eventually needs to be followed-up in a separate PR.

csarven avatar Aug 15 '22 12:08 csarven

On improving our efforts on open standards and technology development, and clarifying the "authority" of voice:

I will look into ensuring that the members of the editors team either speak for themselves (when given plethora of time and opportunity) or refrain from communicating on behalf of everyone in the team when there are glaring conflicts with prior open discussion and consensus (with no objections) reached by the editors team or ongoing discussions (especially, as with the case here, when neglecting to identify themselves in public; not consulting with all members of the editors team to continue discussion; or, neglecting to provide transcripts of the discussions that took among some of its members.)

csarven avatar Aug 15 '22 12:08 csarven